Q. Have you ever read about -- maybe not the book
but read other articles about his idea that it is highly
improbable for these complex structures to have intelligence even
if you consider the earth four billion years old?

A. Well, there are different ways of understanding
mind. You can understand it as a process or you can understand it
as a concrete reality from which mental processes emerge.

Q. Is there a real distinction between the two
that you just defined as far as being a part of mind?

A. Well, mind as a process unfolds in cognitional
acts such as being attentive, being intelligent, being critical,
and being responsible. Mind as the foundation of that, we call it
the desire to know or you could call it the intellect.

Q. Both of those would require intelligence,
though, the processing and the desire to know?

A. In order to explain their existence, you mean,
the existence of mind?

A. Strong anthropic principle maintains that the
universe that we live in, the big bang universe that we live in,
has been set up, as it were -- "structured" would be a better
term -- from the very first microsecond of the universe's
existence in such an exquisitely sensitive way that were any of
the conditions and constants that prevailed at the time of the
big bang absent, then neither life nor mind would ever have
arisen.

Q. And that is a scientific speculation -- I don't
want to call it a theory right now, but is it a scientific theory
or is it something less than a theory at this point?

A. Yes. Physicists are more interested in the weak
anthropic principle than the strong anthropic principle. The
strong anthropic principle tendentiously moves toward the
positing of a cosmic designer, whereas the weak anthropic
principle is much less controversial. And that simply maintains
that obviously the universe was set up for bringing about beings
with minds because we're here.

Q. And do these physicists that belong -- that
believe in the strong anthropic principle indicate that it
requires the existence of a transcendent, orderly Providence with
a capital P?

A. Some physicists jump to that conclusion as the
theologians, but there are other physicists who do not make that
conclusion. There are a wide variety of interpretations of the
strong anthropic principle.

Q. And in your book, you indicate that this
particular principle comes pretty close to the intelligent design
theory?

Q. Yes. But this is being discussed in the
scientific world, is it not?

A. It's being discussed by scientists, but it's
misleading to say it's being discussed necessarily as a
scientific hypothesis. It is in some quarters, but not in
others.

Q. Okay. And the basis of this is that mind
basically developed from that big bang?

A. The basis of it is that the existence of mind
depends physically upon the universe having certain
properties.

Q. And these properties had to be, as you said, so
elegant that complexity of our universe would not have occurred
without that elegant mind or design. Is that correct?

A. To use the term "design" I think begs the
question in a way, because the question is whether it's the
consequence of design or whether it's the consequence of many,
many, many universes, most of which would not be set up for
bringing about consciousness. And the one that we live in,
according to the multiverse theory of people like Martin Reese
and many others, which is becoming an increasingly popular idea
in science today, the existence of our universe with the
properties that give rise to life for many scientists -- and this
is necessary for scientists to do as scientists -- can be
explained naturalistically without appealing to supernatural
design.

Q. And as you indicated, theologians are
interested in this principle?

A. Yes. Theologically, it's quite appropriate. And
I, myself, strongly suspect that given the -- what I consider to
be given the existence of a God who cares that consciousness come
about, it would not be surprising that the universe is so
constructed as to allow that to come about. But, see, that's a
theological jump, not a scientific --

Q. Right, I understand that. That's why I wanted
to say that. But also, aside from the theologians' interest,
scientists are interested in it. Correct?

A. Yes, but scientists qua scientists or
scientists qua persons who are curious about ultimate questions?
There's a distinction that you have to make.

Q. Scientists qua scientists. Physicists that are
talking in terms of physics, the laws of physics.

A. Oh, yes, physicists are the ones who gave us
this new picture of the universe as endowed with the properties
that are right for mind.

Q. And I don't recall where it's in the book, but
I remember reading it, that you said if the universe was a
trillionth off --

A. That's what
Stephen Hawking says. Or he
wouldn't put it that way. He would say if any of those values,
like the expansion rate of the universe, the gravitational
coupling constant, and other factors, ratio of electrons, proton
mass, things like that, if those values had been off
infinitesimally, then not only Hawking, but many, many
astrophysicists agree that life would not have been able to
evolve and mind would not have been able to evolve out of
life.

Q. So would that be evidence, these physicists,
the claims of these physicists, would that be evidence for a
design?

A. It would be evidence for a very interesting fit
between the physical conditions and parameters of the universe
and the existence of mind. But that's not -- they would not use
the term "design" in the sense of the product of some
intelligence. That's for theology and philosophy to speculate
about, not science.

Q. Well, that's a self-imposed arbitrary line, is
it not, that's for theologists to talk about versus
physicists?

A. Well, if you're saying that science imposes
arbitrary lines in order to distinguish itself from other kinds
of inquiry -- I think, as I said earlier in my testimony, science
is a self-consciously, self-limiting discipline that leaves out
any explanation of things in terms of intelligence, God,
miracles, so forth.

Q. Are you saying then that only those physicists
who believe in the intelligent design theory of Behe and Dembski
are holding this anthropic principle?

A. There are many physicists who are studying the
physical conditions that make life and mind possible.

Q. And, in fact, in your book you also say it is
such an infinitesimal chance that human beings were able to be
created by this process, did you not?

A. Yes. Physicists themselves remark at what they
call the remarkable precision with which the initial conditions
and fundamental constants are given their mathematical values
precisely such as to give rise to life and mind, but they don't
explain how this precision came about. That's for theology and
philosophy.

A. Well, in the sense that science deliberately
distinguishes itself from theology and philosophy by limiting
itself to efficient and material causal explanation.

Q. Are you telling me that if these physicists
come with a theory that is accepted based on the evidence, that
they would not be able to posit intelligent design because you
say that's a theological question?

A. They would not, as scientists, use intelligent
design as a scientific explanation.

Q. Based on the theory that we're talking about
held by these physicists, they don't believe that this exquisite,
elegant complex university that is responsible for human beings
on this small planet happened by accident, do they?

A. Many of them don't. They make that judgment,
though, not as scientists but as philosophers and
theologically-inquisitive people.

Q. And they basically posit the theory that at the
moment of the big bang, all of the laws of nature had to be in
place. Is that true?

A. That's not how they would put it. They would
say that the conditions and constants that give rise eventually
to life and mind had to have been in place, yes.

A. Darwin's theory of evolution talks about the
origin of life, not the universe.

Q. And has any evolutionist talked about how that
could have happened by natural selection?

A. Yeah, there are, in fact, among cosmologists,
there are those who have a kind of Darwinian frame of mind, and
they would explain the existence of our universe, life giving --
life producing mind producing universe, as a naturally selected
to survive phenomenon out of a whole background of lives that are
universes which would not be able to give rise to life.

A. Not at all, because the way the scientists
explain intelligence is by looking toward what is earlier and
simpler in the process, whereas the way theology would interpret
intelligence -- and I think it has every right to do so -- is in
terms of final causes and divine causation, which is not
detectable to scientific inquiry.

Q. But it's kind of astounding that matter itself,
as it gets more complex, would develop its own intelligence.
Would that be a fair statement?

A. I think that Richard Dawkins, E. O. Wilson,
Stephen Jay Gould, they're scientists who carelessly, at times,
conflate science with a materialist ideology. For example, if you
read Richard Dawkins, sometimes on the same page he switches back
and forth three or four times between philosophical statements
and scientific statements without pointing this out to the
reader.

Q. That's a good point. Isn't it true that a lot
of times writers on evolution switch back and forth in their --
the definition of evolution that they're using in the same
paragraph?

Q. Well, we don't know, based upon the data that
we have, whether Darwin was right in his postulation of life
starting from one or two cells and developing through a series of
macroevolution through natural selection?

A. We don't have present observational sensitivity
or sense awareness of things that are no longer in the present,
but you can make reasonable hypotheses. For example, nobody
doubts that the Hawaiian Islands were brought about by volcanic
action, most of which nobody ever saw but which nobody doubts
takes place.

Similarly, evolutionists -- at least in principle,
evolutionary science is, in principle, able to make reasonable
conjectures -- or hypotheses, rather, about how certain events in
the fossil record took place.

Q. We see the Hawaiian Islands, so we can at least
now that they exist. We see fossil records, so we know that they
exist. Will we ever see the first cell or couple of cells that
Darwin postulates life began, from which life began?

Q. We don't even have an idea who that common
ancestor would be, do we?

A. I think we're getting closer and closer by
studying genetics, especially, to being able to make more and
more reasonable inferences.

Q. Well, genetics is not going to tell us who the
common ancestor is, is it?

A. Genetics is telling us more and more about the
story of evolution because as we read the human genome, we can
see almost chapter by chapter how evolution came about. Genetics
is now one of the strongest -- you might say strongest pieces of
evidence for evolutionary science.

Q. Well, let me give you an analogy. I have some
nuts and bolts. I take some nuts and bolts and make a car.

A. Theology is reflection upon religious
experience which seeks to understand the point, the objective of
what we call faith. We might even define theology as St. Anselm
did as faith seeking understanding.

A. Yes. But official teaching documents have
various grades of authority. Catechism would not be the
highest.

Q. And you actually have a lot of problems with
this book, do you not?

A. Well, the reason that the new Catechism was
brought about was that people found the old Catechism was
inadequate. And likewise, there are people today, including many
theologians, who already find this Catechism inadequate,
also.

Q. You believe that God started the universe and
really doesn't know what's going to happen?

A. If you want me to get into the theology of
this, I can. It's very complex, and it requires going back to
some chapters in the history of theology where this question was
debated between Dominicans and Jesuits to the point where the
Pope told them both to keep still and stop talking about it. And
for that reason, I don't think it's prudent for me to --

A. You have to put this in context to make this a
real question. The stories of virgin births were the ways in
which ancient religious communities tried to get across to their
followers the specialness of the one who is being born. And so
the attempt to be too literal about any of these teachings is, in
my view, not to take them seriously. So that question is one that
would lead only to a misunderstanding if I were to say yes or
no.

Q. So isn't that a doctrine of the Catholic
Church, virgin birth of Christ?

A. It's not in the creed. Well, yes, it is. But
it's -- there are lots of doctrines in all religions that need to
be interpreted in order to be taken seriously.

A. What the church said -- if you want to find out
what the church said, read Leo the XIII's
encyclical Providentissimus Deus published in 1893 in which he said
Catholics should never look for scientific information in the
biblical text. So if you're talking about the virgin birth as
something that's scientifically true, Catholics, by instruction
of Leo the XIII, do not have to go that way.

A. The church believes in these ideas only in
connection with the doctrine of original sin, and that means
simply that all of us are born into a world that's pretty messed
up and we are all contaminated by that and we need redemption
from.

The key point of the whole virgin birth idea, Adam
and Eve, is to emphasize, to make a place cognitionally to
understand the meaning of what we call the Savior or theme of
redemption.

A. The church is primarily interested in
communicating to people the salvific significance of the man
Jesus. And throughout the ages it does this in many different
ways, and sometimes it has to revive and revise catechisms in
order to make that mission something that can be
accomplished.

A. I don't look for scientific information. I
don't look for scientifically factual information in a text
which, by genre, fits in the category of what all biblical
scholars today call myth rather than history.

Q. I didn't ask you for a scientific explanation.
You're a theologian. As a matter of faith, do you believe --

A. You're asking a historical question, and the
whole concept of history, as we understand it today, was in many
ways fashioned by the scientific revolution with its concern for
factual evidence. So history is not able to be disassociated from
the whole scientific movement.

Q. In your deposition, you talked about the
resurrection of Christ, and you indicated that when Christ
appeared in the upper room after his resurrection, if we had a
video camera going, we would never have captured Him.

A. I believe this, and so does, for example,
Cardinal Avery Dulles, who is one of the most conservative church
people around. If you read his book,
Apologetics and the Biblical Christ, he says just that, if people did not have faith, if his
disciples did not have faith, they would not have seen
anything.

Q. Professor Haught, I'd like to just touch on a
few points that were brought up in the cross-examination.

Do you regard intelligent design as religious
because of the religious views of some of its proponents or
because of the content of intelligent design?

A. It's inherently religious, but in the sense --
"religion" is a word that can encompass both spontaneous religion
and theology. As I clarified, it's a theological concept,
inherently theological. That means,
a fortiori, that it's a
religious concept, as well.

Q. You were asked whether Mr. Behe's notion of
irreducible complexity is or is not testable. Whether or not
irreducible complexity is testable, do you have a view as to
whether intelligent design is testable?

Q. Mr. Thompson asked you several questions about
the materialist views of some evolutionary biologists. Am I
correct in understanding you that you don't want evolutionary
biology being used to either prove or disprove the existence of
God?

Q. I'd like to read from the book Pandas at Page
150, which is the glossary section. And the definition of
"intelligent design" is given as follows: "Any theory that
attributes an action, function, or the structure of an object to
the creative mental capacities of a personal agent. In biology,
the theory that biological organisms owe their origin to a
preexistent intelligence." Is that a religious proposition?

THE WITNESS: A scientific and philosophical
critique of naturalism where the scientific critique identifies
the empirical inadequacies of naturalistic evolutionary theories
and the philosophical critique demonstrates how naturalism
subverts every area of inquiry that it touches.

Second, a positive scientific research program
known as intelligent design for investigating the effects of
intelligent causes.

Third, another prong, a cultural movement for
systematically rethinking every field of inquiry that has been
infected by naturalism, reconceptualizing it in terms of
design.

And then fourth, the one that I mentioned, a
sustained theological investigation that connects the
intelligence inferred by intelligent design with the God of
Scripture and therewith formulates a coherent theology of
nature.

THE COURT: All right. We will then, with the
completion of this witness -- and let's take the exhibits, Liz
reminds me. We have the CV, which is P315. Obviously you're
moving for the admission of the CV. Is that correct?